From: | Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RFC: split OBJS lines to one object per line |
Date: | 2019-10-31 16:48:46 |
Message-ID: | 239f0bc2-cf95-844a-e760-82185510c11e@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/29/19 11:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-10-29 16:31:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>>> one of the most frequent conflicts I see is that two patches add files
>>> to OBJS (or one of its other spellings), and there are conflicts because
>>> another file has been added.
>>> ...
>>> Now, obviously these types of conflicts are easy enough to resolve, but
>>> it's still annoying. It seems that this would be substantially less
>>> often a problem if we just split such lines to one file per
>>> line.
>>
>> We did something similar not too long ago in configure.in (bfa6c5a0c),
>> and it seems to have helped. +1
>
> Cool. Any opinion on whether to got for
>
> OBJS = \
> dest.o \
> fastpath.o \
> ...
>
> or
>
> OBJS = dest.o \
> fastpath.o \
> ...
>
> I'm mildly inclined to go for the former.
+1 for the former.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2019-10-31 17:02:58 | TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-10-31 16:48:22 | idea - proposal - defining own psql commands |